Fractional CIO | IT Strategy for High-Stakes M&A | Faster M&A, Smoother Exits | De-risking IT & unlocking value | Author

Most technology integrations miss their synergy targets. Not because the technology is wrong, but because the right leadership wasn't in place early enough.

That's where I come in.

I'm an Interim / Fractional CIO specialising in Transformation & Resilience. I work with CEOs and boards of multi-site, acquisition-led businesses, typically PE-backed, 500–10,000 employees, to turn technology from a source of risk into a source of value.

When integration timelines slip, cyber posture is unclear, or the estate has grown faster than the team can manage, I step in to stabilise delivery, simplify complexity, and build a roadmap the board can trust.
Recent engagement:

VetPartners (BC Partners-backed, £1B revenue, 14,000 staff, 9 countries). Built the Group IT Strategy from scratch. Created acquisition integration blueprints. Accelerated new practice onboarding by 30%. Simultaneously ran IT operations for 540 UK practices.

Career outcomes:

£700M+ M&A technology integration across the platform and bolt-on acquisitions
£15M+ annual EBITDA contribution through operational excellence and cost optimisation
Technology leadership across automotive retail, consumer goods, and veterinary services

Clients call me when:

→ Integration is off-track, and synergies are at risk
→ The board wants cyber confidence before exit, audit, or due diligence
→ Technology is a red flag in the data room
→ They need senior leadership fast—without permanent headcount

I also serve as NED (Digital & Technology) at Age UK, and I've published on AI governance, IT leadership, and board-level technology strategy.

Available for select interim and fractional mandates.

Let's talk: DJ@Starkhorn.co.uk

Daniel J. Jacobs

The AI didn’t fail. It did exactly what we asked, just not what we meant.
We built an agent that ran flawlessly… until everything around it started quietly breaking.

 If you're leading AI deployments or planning to, this reflection might save you some heartache.

👇 Read it here: Reflections on Agentic AI, Human Trust, and the Space 

Between Promise and Reality

What’s the most surprising thing you’ve learned deploying AI in the real world?

Interim / Fractional CIO (Transformation & Resilience) | Board-level clarity on Technology (Risk • Cost • Delivery) | Multi-site & acquisition-led businesses | M&A integration • Cyber resilience • Operating model

View newsletter: Digital Disruption Digest

The system did what we asked. It just didn’t do what we meant, and we didn’t realise the difference until something subtle broke. Reflections on Agent

Open article: The AI didn’t fail. It did exactly what we asked — just not what we meant. by Daniel J. Jacobs • 7 min read

The AI didn’t fail. It did exactly what we asked — just not what we meant.

“We won’t fix the legacy stack, it’s too complex and too expensive. Let’s add AI and show progress.”

That move can create a short-term win.

The short-term gain

➡️ Nicer dashboards and “insight” layers
➡️ A quick story for the board: “We’re doing AI”
➡️ Lower upfront disruption than a proper rebuild
➡️ Faster cycle times in a few workflows (support, sales ops, reporting)

It feels like momentum because some metrics will move.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 (𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭)

If the core systems are brittle, AI becomes a high-gloss layer sitting on low-trust data and fragile processes.

You end up with:

➡️ Automation of mess (you scale inconsistency, not performance)
➡️ Rising change cost (each “quick win” increases architectural debt)
➡️ Hidden operational risk (every new model relies on unstable integrations)
➡️ A strategy trap (it looks modern, so the real modernisation never happens)
➡️ AI outputs nobody trusts (because the underlying data is wrong or incomplete)

AI on broken foundations doesn’t transform the business; it amplifies whatever the business already is.

𝐀 𝐂𝐄𝐎-𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭

Don’t ask, “Where can we deploy AI?”

Ask, “Where do we have clean ownership, stable data, and a repeatable process so AI can compound value instead of compounding risk?”

𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛:

If a process can’t be measured, governed, and explained without AI… Adding AI won’t fix it. It will just make it faster and harder to debug.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Where in your business is AI used to modernise, and what would fixing the foundation unlock instead?

Kicking off 2026 with renewed energy and big goals, but what I’m hearing from leadership teams isn’t “new year, new me”.

It’s urgency.

After months of planning in 2025, 2026 is shaping up as the year of decisive execution. The “nice-to-have” transformation work is becoming “must-have” modernisation, and the question has changed:

𝐍𝐨𝐭: “Should we modernise?”
𝐁𝐮𝐭: “How fast can we move without breaking what already works?”

The companies that win this year will treat technology as a strategic lever, not a support function:

➔ IT optimisation as a weapon, not a cost centre
➔ M&A integration as value creation, not operational admin
➔ Cybersecurity as business enablement, not just risk management

If 2026 is the year you’re aiming to reduce complexity, strengthen resilience, or become acquisition-ready, I’m happy to compare notes.

What’s your biggest technology challenge heading into 2026?

#ITStrategy #DigitalTransformation #Cybersecurity #BusinessGrowth #2026Goals

New IT strategy question for 2026:
How fast can you change your mind—without breaking the business?

That confession will sound familiar to anyone who has watched organisations cycle through enthusiasm and quiet disappointment. Project NANDA’s prelimi

Open article: New IT strategy question for 2026:
How fast can you change your mind—without breaking the business? by Daniel J. Jacobs • 7 min read

70% of digital transformations fall short. It's not because the technology fails, but rather because the operating model remains unchanged. (McKinsey/BCG)

After years spent guiding transformations and saving millions across PE-backed businesses, one truth is impossible to ignore:

“Technology rarely breaks a transformation.
Behaviour, capability, and ownership do.”

Because if the organisation doesn’t change how it works, the tooling becomes nothing more than expensive wallpaper.

Here’s how this destroys EBITDA:

𝟏. 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞

If leaders don’t change how they work, new systems become old habits wrapped in a new interface.

Commercial impact:
→ £300k–£700k in unrealised value for a mid-market portfolio company.

𝟐. 𝐋𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

You can’t scale with a workforce that doesn’t believe in the new system—or lacks the skills to use it.

The hard truth:

- 60% of work can be automated
- 70% of teams fear the capability gap
- 80% of leaders mistake resistance for stubbornness (instead of upskilling)

Commercial impact:
→ 10–15% rise in operating costs (often £500k+ annually)

𝟑. 𝐙𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐎𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩

When nobody owns decisions, transformations collapse under their own weight:

- No clear accountabilities
- No single owner for platforms
- No clarity on “who delivers what, by when”

Commercial impact:
→ £5M–£10M wiped off the exit valuation due to poor execution discipline

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛:

Spend your first 30 days on:
✓ Shifting behaviour
✓ Upskilling teams and rebuilding capability
✓ Establishing clear ownership and decision rights

When behaviour, capability, and ownership move in tandem, PE-backed companies typically see a 1–4% annual improvement in EBITDA.

Because successful transformations were never about technology —
They’re about disciplined execution.

Repost ♻️ if you’re tired of seeing transformations fail for the same avoidable reasons.

P.S. CIOs, which mistake (1–3) do you see most often in the field?

Early in my career, I measured myself by how much I was needed.

Every escalation that landed on my desk felt like proof I was valuable.
Every decision that required my sign-off confirmed I was essential.

Then I took two weeks off. And the wheels came off.

Not because my team wasn’t capable.
Because I’d built a system that required me to function. I’d confused being needed with being effective.

That was a hard lesson. And it shows up fast in boardrooms and due diligence.

When investors assess a business, they’re not only looking at EBITDA.
They’re quietly asking: what happens if this person leaves?

If the honest answer is “things slow down” or “decisions stall”, that risk gets priced in, even if performance looks fine today.

The harsh reality for technology leaders is that being indispensable isn’t a sign of strength; it's a sign of vulnerability masked as importance.

The shift that changed how I lead:

𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, “How do we perform when I’m here?”
𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, “How do we perform when I’m not?”

Design decision rights so choices don’t bottleneck.
Build operating rhythms that run without you in the room.
Create clarity so your team doesn’t need to check with you; they already know.

That’s operational maturity: not a leader holding things together, but a system that doesn’t need holding.

What’s one thing you’ve deliberately built to work without you?

PE firms don’t buy technology.
They buy better EBITDA.

This is the non-negotiable truth of Private Equity.

Most CIOs still believe PE wants:
• New platforms
• AI implementation
• Modern tech stacks
• Big transformation programmes

This is “technology theatre”.

After delivering £1.5M in savings across multiple PE-backed businesses in 10+ countries, one pattern is consistent: 𝐏𝐄 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐲𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬.

Here's the brutal truth. PE partners aren't interested in shiny tech. They need commercial clarity.

They priorities:

𝟏. 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:
Reducing operational cost through vendor optimisation, licence rationalisation, and system consolidation.

𝟐: 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
Eliminating technical and vendor debt (including the £500k penalties and £3M true-ups we routinely uncover) that can erode exit value.

𝟑. 𝐀 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐱𝐢𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲:
Building a simple, scalable platform that guarantees growth. Allows the next buyer to pay a higher multiple (as seen in the 10x outcome achieved for one of our clients).

This requires the CIO to become the Chief Value Officer.

Every transformational decision (from renewing a Salesforce contract to integrating a new acquisition) must be tied around its direct commercial outcome— otherwise it's noise.

P.S. What is the single biggest "tech for optics" investment you’ve seen that failed to deliver a measurable EBITDA-level return? Comment ↓

AI in growth planning has moved from experiment to operating system. Five evidence-backed patterns, and what actually changes in your next planning cycle

The shift isn't about faster spreadsheets. It's about fundamentally rethinking how organisations sense, decide, and adapt. Something quiet but profoun

Open article: 5 Ways AI Is Reshaping Growth Planning in 2026 by Daniel J. Jacobs • 5 min read

5 Ways AI Is Reshaping Growth Planning in 2026

Your M&A integration strategy should do one thing above all: protect EBITDA.

Most integrations fail because leaders start with systems rather than commercial reality.

They obsess over:
- Buying new tools
- Implementing platforms
- Rebuilding CRMs
- Chasing “transformation theatre.”
- Forcing teams to adapt before they’re ready

And the consequences are predictable.
Here’s how EBITDA leaks when leaders ignore commercial reality:

𝟏. 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:
Misaligned teams delay integration by 30–60 days, resulting in £500k+ in EBITDA leakage.

𝟐. 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬:
Each delay increases deal costs by 10–15%, often adding £500k–£1M in extra operating spend.

𝟑. 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬:
A 60–90-day delay can reduce valuation by 0.5x–1.2x EBITA multiples, wiping £5M–£12M from the exit story of a mid-market portfolio company.

And once EBITDA leaks, you almost never get it back.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐬:
Protecting EBITDA is unrelated to technology.

It begins with stabilising people, contracts, and processes in the first 90 days (long before systems are touched).

Because if teams aren’t aligned, contracts aren’t secured, and processes aren’t controlled, the exit clock is already ticking. Every month of delay permanently erodes value.

This is why the best CIOs ruthlessly remove duplication, noise, and complexity.
They lead with clarity, disciplined sequencing, and clean commercial execution.

The result?

𝐂𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 £𝟐𝟓𝟎𝐤–£𝟓𝟎𝟎𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝟗𝟎 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 (as we’ve seen repeatedly across multiple PE-backed businesses).

Commercial stability comes first.
Systems come last.

Repost ♻️ if you’re tired of watching the same integration failures repeated across the industry.

P.S. What’s the most expensive integration mistake you’ve seen CIOs make? Comment below ↓

Alt text for the Image: M&A Integration Strategy Fix

Most execs don’t realise it… 
Every time employees use public AI tools for sensitive work, they could be training their competitors’ systems.

After Samsung’s $100M wake-up call, and seeing similar risks across industries. I built a framework to help leaders turn AI governance into a competitive edge.

Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eDRYMFFt

The CEO Evolution Coach | I prepare $10M–$30M founders for the $50M-$100M leap through identity, capacity, leadership and people.

I’ve spent the last 11+ years co-creating and working side-by-side with founders as we scaled from:
$1.2M → $10M+ then moving into $15M → $17.5M → $30M+ orgs. 

Wearing the CMO by 28 and COO hat before I was thirty-two.

I’ve built marketing, ops, CX, product, and growth.
I’ve rebuilt departments, hired senior talent, removed bottlenecks, and normalized bigger numbers.

But the deeper pattern revealed itself over time... 

Companies don’t stall because of strategy. 
They stall because of identity.

At $20M–$50M, the game changes.

The business can no longer scale faster than the CEO’s capacity, identity/consciousness.

When identity wobbles, companies stretch A-players, delay senior hires, micromanage decisions, wait for more “proof,” and negotiate scale with conditions. 

“Once marketing improves, then revenue will shift.”
“Once LTV increases, then we’ll start x”
“Once we hit $35M, then we’ll hire senior roles.”
“Once we hit X then I’ll gain more freedom”

Once… then.
Once… then.
Once… then.

Conditional.
Circumstantial.

Slowing down the money.

Here’s the thing… fixing more ops, hiring another quarter out, or tightening SOPs won’t collapse the gap.

Because if conditional scaling worked…
you’d already be at $200K days.

But removing the identity conditions that slow money and decisions?

That’s what makes the jump land fast.

Shifting from $50k days to $200K days will land when your identity isn’t conditional.

If you want:
→ to stop making delay mean something about you
→ to hire senior without needing proof they’ll pay for themselves
→ to stop stretching the A-player across roles/departments
→ to spend money on growth without overthinking it
→ to not need another quarter
→ money that moves without conditions
→ powerful self trust
→ to move faster
→ to feel safe with bigger numbers (expenses + revenue)

Then you have two options:

You either upgrade identity through my programs

or you work with me 1:1 and collapse the gap that’s slowing down the hires, the decisions, and the money. 

DM me '1:1" if you're interested or click over to my website to buy my programs.

Natalie Nadeau

The weakest link in your company isn’t your right hand — it’s the structure that kept them operating above their pay grade.

Your right hand is brilliant.

They carried you through:

→ sprint cycles
→ chaos
→ hustle
→ firefighting
→ junior teams
→ marketing heroics

They were built for compression, not expansion.

And now that you’ve expanded…

Your right hand is still calibrated to the era you hired them from.

That’s where the drag you're feeling comes in.

Because when you upgrade your identity…

The right hand either:
→ ascends (rare)
→ fractures (common)
→ self-selects out (fast)
→ burns out (delayed exit)
→ gets threatened (identity wobble)
→ becomes incoherent (timeline drag)

Not because they’re incompetent.

But because identity coherence didn’t move through the org.

You evolved.
Your structure didn’t.

Your right hand is still operating in survival ops.

That’s how you end up with:
• players stretched across 3–5 roles
• siloed departments gated behind one person
• decisions bottlenecked through COO/CMO
• senior hires not sticking
• timelines dragging

A right hand hired to carry $3M–$20M cannot distribute decisions at $30M–$100M yet.

Because that next leap requires:
→ departments
→ senior leadership
→ identity coherence
→ decision distribution
→ throughput
→ inevitability

Your right hand is operating above their comp, title, and era because you’ve expanded — and the org hasn’t caught up yet.

This is why you keep feeling the:
→ drag
→ heaviness
→ slowness
→ friction
→ “why is this taking so long?”

It’s not ops.
It’s not marketing.

And this is when your COO/CMO starts saying things like:
→ “The team has a lot on their plate — I don’t want to add more right now.”
→ “We just need a bit more time.”
→ “Let’s wait until next quarter.”
→ “The timing doesn’t make sense for that yet.”
→ “Once we finish optimizing X, then we can do Y.”

Those aren’t project updates.
Those are capacity signals.

Those are the subtle check engine lights that tell you whether your right hand can carry the next era — or whether they’re already maxed and operating from survival identity.

Rewiring shows you exactly how to read those signals — fast — so you can see who’s coming with you and who isn’t.

Because you don’t scale to $50M–$100M by hoping your old era talent evolves with you.

You scale by creating identity coherence across
founder → right hand → departments → reality.

It’s about calibrating identity, capacity, people, and leadership so you can see — quickly — whether they ascend or self-select out.

📌 Rewiring: Capacity, People & Leadership for Scale is open.
DM or comment REWIRING or get inside here.
https://lnkd.in/e9j53whs

No alternative text description for this image

If you only have one or two people in your org making more than $100K annually…
you’re slowing down the money and expecting outcomes from identities that were never designed to take you there.

You’re trying to scale with a talent pool that:

✔ can’t afford mistakes
✔ can’t afford risks
✔ can’t afford autonomy
✔ can’t afford conflict
✔ can’t afford not to reply you
✔ can’t afford boundaries
✔ can’t afford time off
✔ can’t afford to upset you

When someone is one paycheck away from chaos, they don’t innovate — they obey from fear.

Obedience doesn’t scale.
Fear doesn’t scale.
Self-abandonment definitely doesn’t scale.

You dropped beliefs, identities, and habits to get to $10M–$30M… but you kept the people who stayed behind.

Founders evolve first.
They shed identity fast.
They shed people last.

That’s why the org lags.
That’s why timelines drag.
That’s why the ceiling feels “ops-related” when it’s actually identity-related.

You think it’s:

→ marketing
→ ops
→ systems
→ tools
→ optimization

It’s not.

It’s talent economics vs revenue ambition.

You’re expecting $200K/day realities from a team built on $60K-$80k identity maturity and survival economics.

Survival talent will never take your business to the next level and if your honest, the senior hires trigger you subconsciously. 

Scaling requires shedding:

→ junior identity
→ cheap labor economics
→ fear-based loyalty
→ hustle culture
→ survival mode
→ obedience as currency

$200K days require distributed decision-making.

They require autonomy — not task execution.
They require leaders — not do-ers.
They require identities that can hold money, not identities that are afraid to lose it.

You’re emotionally attached to the people who got you to $10M–$30M.
You want them to “continue.”
You want them to “grow into leadership.”
You want them to “figure it out.”
You want survival talent to evolve into senior talent.

It never happens.

Your attachment to the wrong identities is the single most expensive bottleneck in your entire business.

Because while you’re trying to upgrade the people who carried the past you’re not opening the org to the identities that hold the future.

You can stay at $10M–$30M with survival culture + fear economics + junior dependency or you can learn the exact moves you need to make inside my new program Rewiring Capacity, People & Leadership for Scale and make the shift to $50M–$100M inevitable.

Money always follows identity.
Scale always follows leadership.
Freedom always follows people.

And sometimes the most expensive hire in the org is the one you didn’t fire. 

Purchase Rewiring Capacity, People & Leadership for Scale here:
https://lnkd.in/eHhytVJs

your A-player isn’t saying “yes” because they’re limitless.

they’re saying “yes” because they’re afraid.

afraid to look weak.
afraid to lose momentum.
afraid to ask for support.
afraid to set boundaries.

afraid you’ll replace them with someone who can do it all.
so they self-abandon.

meanwhile you love them because:
→ they never say no
→ they always “figure it out”
→ they respond at 8pm
→ they respond on weekends
→ they hold the load without complaint

but here’s the truth they don’t say out loud:
“I need a social media hire.”
“I need someone in email.”
“I need someone in retention.”
“I need someone in customer service.”
“I need someone to take over x.”

not because they’re incompetent…but because they’re operating across multiple departments on a $60K–$80K paycheck. and when someone is operating from survival economics, they can’t operate from their zone of genius or set up clear boundaries.

and burnout has two outcomes:

the sudden quit >> the “last day is today” resignation that drops you back into the weeds with zero SOPs, no knowledge transfer, and a giant crater in momentum.

or

the silent exit >> the A-player who leaves you for a company that gives them leadership, autonomy, and support without every talking to you about it.

both outcomes don’t cost you an employee — they cost you trajectory.

→ revenue
→ momentum
→ throughput
→ timelines
→ compounding decisions
→ innovation cycles
→ capacity to receive
→ senior hiring window
→ culture of autonomy

and it keeps you in the exact loop you say you’re done with:

“we just need better ops / marketing / systems.”

no.

you need the right people in the right seats, with the right support, at the right level.

your A-player is already leaving — they’re just waiting for the right job description.

you think you’re saving $150K in payroll with three new hires to support them— but you’re actually losing $40M in trajectory.

rewiring capacity, people & leadership is where this gets corrected.

because scaling isn’t about squeezing more out of your best people. it’s about building an identity and structure that can hold departments, seniors, and reality bigger than what you’re currently built for.

📌 Rewiring is the missing piece that will expose the gaps you’re not seeing.
https://lnkd.in/eHhytVJs

taplio

The Battle

Daniel J. Jacobs

Natalie Nadeau

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreDaniel J. Jacobs's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNatalie Nadeau's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Daniel J. Jacobs

Natalie Nadeau

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Daniel J. Jacobs's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNatalie Nadeau's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreDaniel J. Jacobs's LinkedIn Performance